Correspondence chess community

[Valer Eugen Demian]

For those who do not know by now, the official body responsible for ANY form of correspondence chess in this country is CCCA (http://correspondencechess.com/ccca/)! By any form of correspondence chess I include the 3 most popular forms: postal, email and server/ internet chess.

The governors are voting now on a motion allowing CFC to rate internet games. Considering there exists a written partnership between CFC and CCCA for years and I have been acting as the CCCA governor for at least 4 years in a row, I consider this motion out of order and breaking this partnership.

Regardless of these facts the governors continue to vote in favour of it, even after my explanations and request to eliminate it. I have advised the CCCA Executives of this development and with this message I also advise all chess lovers from across the country who have played one form or another at any given time.

Please make your voice heard! Do not let lack of knowledge or indiference break a partnership based on a win-win situation. CCCA has never done anything unilaterally to hurt CFC and does not deserve this kind of treatment.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

The CFC ran active tournaments on the ICC server 2003-2005 time period without any comments from the CCCA.

I really fail to see an issue here. These are proposed games with TDs at both ends played in real time - team events between clubs at different locations are the most likely application. I hope some activity will happen but I do not think this will amount to much and none of it is at the expense of events run by the CCCA.

I think claims of exclusive jurisdiction by CCCA based on the transmission of moves between two locations in real time over the internet are simply not well founded.

[Sam.Sharpe]

As long as the games are real-time and run at CFC ratable time controls, I do not see an issue with this.

[Paul Leblanc]

Valer, can you provide me with the contact information of the President of the CCCA and a copy of the agreement? We passed the motion to give strict guidelines about rating internet events because there have been a few internet events sent in for CFC rating. I'd like to work with CCCA.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

... with your points of view. Imagine beginning May 1st CCCA will decide unilaterally to rate (and charge fees) for OTB games between their members; how would CFC feel about it?

If CFC has ran tournaments on ICC in the past that is too bad. It just shows in my personal opinion a "cut throat" type of running the business and not at all a partnership.

Sam, internet games are internet games. Of course the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I am very disappointed this is the reaction of the chess community to my concern. It shows disrespect toward me as a chess person and toward CCCA as an official organization. Sam should know better since he played correspondence in the past...

How do you find justice to comment on governors participation in general when you simply dismiss points like this one? Are there "governors" (important) and "governors" (who cares)?... :mad:

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Valer, can you provide me with the contact information of the President of the CCCA and a copy of the agreement? We passed the motion to give strict guidelines about rating internet events because there have been a few internet events sent in for CFC rating. I'd like to work with CCCA.

I have provided you with the website URL where this information is widely available for years. You shoot first and then want to ask questions later; nice...

The disappointment comes mostly from seeing governors who do not care and instead of asking for a discussion, they continue to vote blindly/ carelessly. Who cares about CCCA and "that" governor... Shame!

[Jonathan Berry]

Having been both kinds of player, I thought I might butt in here. On this exact subject, I have read only the postings on this thread. It strikes me that there are three main differences between CC and OTB:
1. Immediacy. In the old days, that was obvious. OTB players met face-to-face; CC players stayed at home (except for their annual match against a local chess club in Toronto and Vancouver and ...).
2. Time Limit. For OTB, up to 4 minutes per move; CC 3 days per move.
3. Consultation. In OTB, any sort of consultation meant loss of the game; in CC traditionally a player could consult any book. When computers came along, that logically expanded to any database. Finally when computer programs became good enough to make a difference, their use became a point of contention. Different CC jurisdictions had different rules. But in analogy to books, because its use is undetectable, computer help is generally allowed. Human help, however, because the other human is a witness, was always verboten, though there have been famous floutings of that rule....

Server chess is a kind of CC. But it is also a kind of OTB, and that was the first kind of server that arose. I don't have the dates at hand, but OTB servers preceded CC servers by a decade or so. The kind of chess that is normally played on servers such as ICC, 1 0 or 3 1 (bullet chess or Blitz) is way more like OTB chess than it is like CC. I think it is reasonable that CFC has decided to rate server games played at OTB speeds.

However, let's look at point 3. above. Are unsupervised games played at speeds between Allegro (30 minutes or so per game) up to Classical (as slow as 4 minutes per move) likely to operate under the shadow of consultation? Emphatically, yes. I remember playing an ICC tournament, I think it was a Dos Hermanas qualifier, where the control was announced as 4 1 (4 minutes for the game plus one second increment per move made), but the administration decided that this time limit allowed too much leeway for manual consultation with computer programs and changed it to 3 1. Consultation begins even at Blitz speeds. They become at least in some sense CC games.

I think it is also important to look at use. Does the CCCA rate 5 0 games played on servers other than its own / ICCF's ? I'm guessing a double no. So any CCCA objection should be based on its own rating history and intentions. Surely the goal can't be to prevent both organizations from rating any particular type of game.

I therefore think that the CFC should ask the CCCA to sit down at an executive level to hammer out this jurisdictional matter. Without rancour on either side, in the best Canadian tradition.

I've said it before, but I also think it healthy for chess in Canada to reconsider (and in some instances to consider for the first time) the provincial (chess association) versus the federal (CFC) aspects. I know that I'm extending the joke that Bertrand Auger told during breaks of taping the Fou du Roi TV series, about graduates from various nations being tasked to write an essay about elephants. So the English, German, French, Scottish, American, Italian ... all wrote about the stereotypical things ("Elephants and Empire" came from which obvious source? Love? Thrift? Business? ...) until the punch line, when the Canadian revealed his title: "Elephants, a Federal or Provincial Responsibility?".

[Sam.Sharpe]

Hi Valer,

I am sorry if you feel that I have disrespected you personally and the CCCA as an entity. No slighting of the CCCA or yourself was intended at all. I am still an active correspondence player (both CCCA and ICCF) as well as continuing to play in OTB tournaments, and view each as very different forms of chess.

My comment is geared towards facilitating real-time games between those which are separated by distance. Thinking back to the "old" games played in the past with moves transmitted by telephone, this is just an updated transmission medium IMO.

I do not feel that the motion (which has now been shelved for further discussion between the CFC and CCCA, if I understand correctly) had intentions to undermine the CCCA at all. I'll trust the execs of both parties to discuss this in more depth and come to a mutually beneficial understanding.

Thank you,
Sam

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Hi Valer,

I am sorry if you feel that I have disrespected you personally and the CCCA as an entity. No slighting of the CCCA or yourself was intended at all. I am still an active correspondence player (both CCCA and ICCF) as well as continuing to play in OTB tournaments, and view each as very different forms of chess.

My comment is geared towards facilitating real-time games between those which are separated by distance. Thinking back to the "old" games played in the past with moves transmitted by telephone, this is just an updated transmission medium IMO.

I do not feel that the motion (which has now been shelved for further discussion between the CFC and CCCA, if I understand correctly) had intentions to undermine the CCCA at all. I'll trust the execs of both parties to discuss this in more depth and come to a mutually beneficial understanding.

Thank you,
Sam

Hi Sam,

First of all I salute Jonathan's input, very professional and to the point as usual! The only thing I can add to it is ICCF has been moving lately toward "fast-internet" chess and that approaches at light speed OTB played over the internet as intended in the motion. This comes from being an ICCF commissioner for 8 years (stepped down last summer). Writing a good one now could save a lot of headaches later on...

The motion is written poorly. It should specify organized internet chess in Canada falls under the jurisdiction of CCCA EXCEPT the situations covered by the motion. It should be no problem to write a true value motion and not something while admitting there was plenty of lack of knowledge involved.

The reflection time per move (clearly specified) or the game(s) being forced to end the same day are a MUST as conditions listed as far as I can see. Other aspects can be discussed to clearly mark the territory each should cover.

The main point remains: it reflects poorly on CFC (again...) to just shoot something from the hips because someone thought nobody has ever thought of it. There was absolutely no life and death situation to hold onto the motion until things got cleared!

To conclude the only part I strongly disagree is the fact this motion is useful as it is written. Let's look for more than 1-2 moves ahead in this plan and of course respect for your fellow governor...

[Ed Zator]

... with your points of view. Imagine beginning May 1st CCCA will decide unilaterally to rate (and charge fees) for OTB games between their members; how would CFC feel about it?


...except that NO organization, let alone the CCCA, has sole jurisdiction over chess played on the Internet!

That is because the Internet is an entirely public medium.

However, EVERY chess organization, CCCA included, is free to use this public medium for its own purposes.

The CFC wants to make sure that any Internet games it rates are proctored,
and within regulations for conducting CFC rated tournaments.

That is none of the CCCA's business. End of story.

[Paul Leblanc]

You shoot first and then want to ask questions later; nice...

Valer, I don't see it that way. I said at this meeting that I had opened a discussion about this at the January meeting. If you go back to the record of the January meeting you will see that I asked for comments about rating internet games in my Rating Auditor report and you did not say anything.

However, I did not hesitate to tell you as soon as you made me aware of the CCCA that I will investigate the CCCA and correspond with the head of the CCCA to reach an amicable agreement.

[Kerry Liles]

You shoot first and then want to ask questions later; nice...

Valer, I don't see it that way. I said at this meeting that I had opened a discussion about this at the January meeting. If you go back to the record of the January meeting you will see that I asked for comments about rating internet games in my Rating Auditor report and you did not say anything.

However, I did not hesitate to tell you as soon as you made me aware of the CCCA that I will investigate the CCCA and correspond with the head of the CCCA to reach an amicable agreement.

Best of luck Paul. Given the apparent position of the CCCA that they (and they alone!) are the keepers of all chess that is played NOTB, I don't see much wiggle room.

I find it preposterous that the CCCA could even dream that it could have a reasonable claim to internet chess (by that I mean a game played via the internet using standard time controls for OTB play with proper supervision at both ends).

I sometimes play a game with a friend via Blackberry BBM (with time controls set at "whenever you get around to moving") - is THAT something the CCCA also claims to have in its jurisdiction?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I find it preposterous that the CCCA could even dream that it could have a reasonable claim to internet chess (by that I mean a game played via the internet using standard time controls for OTB play with proper supervision at both ends).

I don't think that the CCCA has registered its opinion. So far we have one individual's opinion.

[Kerry Liles]

I don't think that the CCCA has registered its opinion. So far we have one individual's opinion.

That is a good point (and thanks for making it clear). That "one individual's opinion" does come from someone on the CCCA executive though? (the Secretary).

I also note this on the CCCA website:


The CCCA is an affiliate of the Chess Federation of Canada (CFC). An annual affiliation fee will be paid to the CFC. This fee shall be set by the Executive of the CCCA from time to time.

[Ken Craft]

The current fee, I believe, is $0.

[Kerry Liles]

The current fee, I believe, is $0.

Colour me surprised.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I am not sure what your points are vis a vis CCCA? I have said it several times and will say it again:

a) Being unaware of an organization and what it does is not an excuse, but maybe an opportunity to learn something new.

b) My main displeasure is about the way I have been treated - with one notable exception (!) - by the Executives and governors: no discussions, no delays, let's vote first and will talk with "him" later. It sets a double standard, one can see from the discussions here too.

c1) "Official" chess over the internet in Canada falls - whether you like it or not - under the jurisdiction of CCCA, affiliated to ICCF which is also affiliated to FIDE. Anyone can play anywhere they want over the internet outside CCCA and it is the same as myself playing OTB with my neighbour over a barbeque, or at the corner club which barely survives because we support it so well within CFC... Those who want to see my point can do that; those who do not, will never see it anyway.

c2) Any game not played "over the board = face to face" falls at least within a grey area where you have to be careful how you define it. In my opinion those with experience in such situations have a better understanding of the whole issue.

d) I simply missed the January discussions about rating internet games. Hasn't it happened to any of you? Still there are several examples (at the same forums) of motions delayed for more discussions and clarifications when one or more governors intervened.

e) I do not know anything about the fees CCCA might have to pay CFC and fail to see what this has to do with my complain? Why such con descendent remarks here? Do you even know those you include have done a lot for chess in Canada you are not even aware of?

f) Yes, I am one of the CCCA Executives; also I am one of the few involved in both CCCA and CFC at several levels. I was hoping this to be regarded as an asset and not as a derogatory label. I fail to remember when I've done the same with any of you!

Any more questions, please feel free to write me! I am not coming here more often than once a week unless there's an online meeting.

[Paul Leblanc]

So far no response to my e-mail to the CCCA executive offering to discuss.

CFC games last 4-6 hours. I've asked CCCA to comment on the length of their games. No repsonse.

CFC internet games require strict TD supervision and full disclosure of moves. I've asked CCCA to comment on the level of supervision they require. No response.

I maintain that CFC and CCCA internet competitions do not overlap, and have asked CCCA to comment. No response.

[Christopher Mallon]

d) I simply missed the January discussions about rating internet games. Hasn't it happened to any of you?

Considering that you are complaining about people missing your post questioning the motion, that's a bit ironic isn't it?